The Second Amendment should be abolished

>>Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?

No it is more of a hunch which what is more effective.

Here is cases where people survived jumping off a bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicides_at_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge#Suicide_rescue

States 34 people have survived.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5175460/
"For every successfully completed suicide there are more than 12 unsuccessful attempts.1 However, surviving an SIGSW is relatively rare and makes up only 1% of all failed suicide attempts"

Guess it is more than a hunch.

>>Someone who simply holds personal property procured through mutually beneficial agreements does not.

Slavery wasn't a mutually beneficial agreement.

"Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide

"Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?"

Suicide is intentional self-inflicted homicide.

The government needs to justify the imposition. Someone who simply holds personal property procured through mutually beneficial agreements does not.

Have evidence that a gun is more likely to create suicide than jumping off a bridge?

>>I don’t know.

A gun.

>>In general principle, I would assume this is backward.

As a general principle this is not needed but this isn't a general conversation.

"You would have to demonstrate why taking away guns is bad instead of stating taking away property is bad."

In general principle, I would assume this is backward.

I don’t know.

I am a pro life libertarian as of the time of this comment.

>>A gun has a high chance of killing someone, but jumping off a bridge has a high chance of causing death too.

Which one is more?

Aren't you inclined towards lliberty?

A gun has a high chance of killing someone, but jumping off a bridge has a high chance of causing death too.

>>Slaves were not confiscated by the government...They were emancipated.

Do explain to me this again.

Children are given freedom what they like with their time supervised by their parents.
Slaves are not free to do what they like and they are supervised on what they are doing while receiving harsher punishment given they have no real familiarity with the slaves.

Slaves were not confiscated by the government...They were emancipated.

>>Slavery isn't analogous, and that's so obvious I'm taking that as a troll comment.

Yes it is. Slavery is analogous because they were property like how guns are property as well. You would have to demonstrate why taking away guns is bad instead of stating taking away property is bad.

>>I'm not sure if only white people received some form of compensation from the government.

"Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted. On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the government paying owners an average of about $300 for each. In 1863, state legislation towards compensated emancipation in Maryland failed to pass, as did an attempt to include it in a newly written Missouri constitution."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation

I'm not sure if only white people received some form of compensation from the government. Slavery isn't analogous, and that's so obvious I'm taking that as a troll comment.

I meant to tag him, not you, but it didn't work properly so I didn't tag anyone. Then you replied to me.

>>He's misidentified the fundamental issue at stake from a UK style confiscation, which is property rights, not the right to self defense.

Then why tag me if it was referring to someone else?

>>Slavery is a poor analogy in this instance. Even prior to the civil war there were people saying that the concept of chattel is invalid, that slaves are equal as people.

If it wasn't property why were white people compensated for losses in profits as in reparations?

Slaves weren't as equal as non-slaves because they were claimed as property by slave owners. Slave owners couldn't be owned as property which is why they are different.

He's misidentified the fundamental issue at stake from a UK style confiscation, which is property rights, not the right to self defense.

Slavery is a poor analogy in this instance. Even prior to the civil war there were people saying that the concept of chattel is invalid, that slaves are equal as people.

Property rights were at stake when slaves were going about their freedom. What is your point?

No it isn't. Guns are more effective. It is very unlikely for someone to not die from a shot to the head.

I think that the suicide rate by a gun is comparable to suicide by jumping off a bridge, although I’m not sure. If the death rate is comparable, then taking away guns would encourage more people to jump off of a bridge, which is more painful.

Property rights are at stake from a UK style confiscation.

>>2.5M instances a year in which a gun is used defensively. There are far more lives saved by guns than lives taken.

2.5 million defensive use doesn't equal guns saved lives. This can be when a simple call to the police could've resolved the issue. Just this alone is to demonstrate there is no link between the two.

>>In many instances, such as England, gun bans did not have any effect on decreasing murder rate. It actually went up a little bit.

Evidence? Debate me perhaps?

>>If you ban guns, criminals get other guns off the black market or just use other things, like knives.

Which can be offset-ted by effective gun removal. Not impossible and if less people have guns there is less in the circulation which results in less that can be used to commit violent or threatening actions.

>> You are taking away 99.9% of gun owners right to self-defense, and punishing them for the crimes off mentally insane people.

No I would be making everyone safer. Like you failed to discuss what I said earlier, Guns are more effective at killing multiple people. Given most altercations happen in open areas a gun has a much larger distance to be used to gun people down at a distance whereas you are forced with a knife to be really close or the rare case where the person is really lucking with throwing a knife or is the like the one person is a professional at throwing knifes. Guns are easier to commit suicide. One trigger and you are dead. With knifes the person can pull out and still have a possibility of being saved whereas with the gun it is probably lethal.

If you want to talk about the amount of people, look at the actual statistics.

2.5M instances a year in which a gun is used defensively. There are far more lives saved by guns than lives taken.

In many instances, such as England, gun bans did not have any effect on decreasing murder rate. It actually went up a little bit. If you ban guns, criminals get other guns off the black market or just use other things, like knives. You are taking away 99.9% of gun owners right to self-defense, and punishing them for the crimes off mentally insane people.

>>I was primarily thinking about suicide from a gun versus suicide from jumping off of a building or something. Once you jump, there is no going back. It takes effort to do either. Death by fractured limbs is more painful than death by gunshot. People who are suicidal will find creative ways to kill themselves if they have the will to do it.

So pain is more important than the amount of people dead?

Most products in the last 100 years tend to be a new variant of the same old thing. A "smart gun" with an electromechanical actuator could be viewed as a liability more often than not if feature can't be 100% bypassed, totally deactivated. They already make guns with integrated locking mechanisms, as well as external locking mechanisms, and mechanisms that are depressed when your hand is wrapped around the gun. I assume most people aren't too keen on paying extra to put batteries in their gun, or relying on electrolytic capacitors and various points of contact. One of the nice things about firearms is that it's still common practice to mass produce designs that can be relied upon for generations.

The NRA does not produce firearms.

A smart gun would solve the gun debate, but I don´t think they exist yet. Maybe the NRA could receive funds to develop a smart gun.

>>It is easier to kill yourself with a gun than it is with a knife. A knife requires a slash. If a person feels the pain of the slash and decides to let go. They might still be saved whereas a shot to the head is almost always death.
Knifes are less effective then guns. Guns kill quicker and can kill from a distance. I much rather have less people die then for some to die painfully.

I was primarily thinking about suicide from a gun versus suicide from jumping off of a building or something. Once you jump, there is no going back. It takes effort to do either. Death by fractured limbs is more painful than death by gunshot. People who are suicidal will find creative ways to kill themselves if they have the will to do it.

should have been done long ago, having the guts to say it wins the debate all alone

oof. Pro's argument was weak. Unfortunate con forfeited and did not jump on that.

You're welcome. I appreciate that.

Thanks for taking the time.

Bumping so I can be respond later.

Hehe. Fair enough.

Guns are cool but dangerous.

Gun ownership

About what?

No, just in general.

In the debate?

What is your actual position?

Can you discuss the debate after it is finished?

"I value life. The second amendment doesn't value the same thing since it is basically a right to bear arms."

The second amendment cannot 'value' anything. The second amendment is a piece of the constitution, not a living being with the ability to 'value' things like you and I can.

"This doesn't lead to life being protected, it leads to death."

I'd say it leads to both. The question is, does it lead to more death than life being protected, or does it lead to more life being protected than death?

"By removing said guns we can eliminate the problem."

I agree. If we can convince everybody to turn over their guns, INCLUDING the very criminals/gangsters who don't care about laws and are NOT GONNA just give up their guns that easily... then yes, we can eliminate the problem.

"I think the government should be put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens not give them things that can only harm their well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others."

Except guns are NOT 'things that can only harm well well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others'. Guns can also be used for useful things like hunting and self-defense, not just to harm well-beings. Can they be misused if in the wrong hands? Yes, but they aren't all-bad.

If guns are causing 'unnecessary fear among others' then those 'others' should man up and understand that a gun by itself is harmless and that someone needs to be behind the trigger in order for the gun to be scary.

Didn't Alec just say that "The 2nd amendment wasn't even made to reduce homicide. It was about protecting ourselves from the biggest mass shooter in history; a mass shooter that has slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century; tyrannical governments."?

To add to what Nihilist said, as a survivor of multiple suicide attempts, I'm positive I'd be dead long ago if I attempted with a gun rather than the methods I did use which take a much longer time to kill someone(so usually each time someone found me in time before it was too late to send me to an ER and save me).

Though, I'm not opposed to the right to have a gun, I just don't think it should be capable of killing innocent people(so perhaps a requirement to have smart guns that don't shoot unless the target is determined to be a threat should be law or something. The details can be ironed out if there are issues with such a gun, such as it taking too long to determine someone is a threat, etc. This requires testing and further advancement ofc, so don't shoot it down immediately until you're certain no amount of testing and advancing would help)

It is easier to kill yourself with a gun than it is with a knife. A knife requires a slash. If a person feels the pain of the slash and decides to let go. They might still be saved whereas a shot to the head is almost always death.

Knifes are less effective then guns. Guns kill quicker and can kill from a distance. I much rather have less people die then for some to die painfully.

Quote your source about the UK not Jamaica. I don't care about a country that isn't a fair comparison to the US.

>>It was about protecting ourselves from the biggest mass shooter in history; a mass shooter that has slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century

Persuasive rhetoric with I am guessing about Stalin. I feel sorry for the indoctrination you are going through. The problem with what you said is that the general populace did not get involved with that war nor did they have to which meant everyone citizen that isn't in the army pretty much had guns but didn't use it. Your argument would only work if Stalin was close to conquering the US but he wasn't.

>>what is Donald Trump doing to illegal immigrants, who don´t have guns to protect themselves?

So instead of advocating for Trump to stop doing bad we should give people guns? So you much rather American citizens die for the right to bear arms instead of simply making Trump do good. Okay.

>>Would he deport the 11 million illegal immigrants if they had guns to protect themselves?

Maybe not but I know what will happen? A lot of American citizens would die all thanks to the hypothetical world you created. Are you going to be happy about that? Don't think so. How about improving the immigration system instead of giving persuasive rhetoric okay?

According to your Pew source, 97% of gun deaths in the US exist because of suicide or murder. If you ban guns, people who want to commit suicide will find other, more painful ways to kill themselves. People who want to murder will commit stabbings as we have seen in the U.K and stabbings are more painful than getting shot in the head. The U.K and Jamaica banned guns and their homicide rates skyrocketed.

The 2nd amendment wasn't even made to reduce homicide. It was about protecting ourselves from the biggest mass shooter in history; a mass shooter that has slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century; tyrannical governments. If you don´t think a tyrannical government will attack the disarmed, what is Donald Trump doing to illegal immigrants, who don´t have guns to protect themselves? Would he deport the 11 million illegal immigrants if they had guns to protect themselves?

ya i have seen you there.